“There is nothing socialist about incompetence, I said in explaining my decision to vote no-confidence in Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. But since then, it has been made clear to me that many prefer incompetent out-of-power socialism to what they perceive to be the alternative.”

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/09/what-they-really-think-about-corbyn-2-chi-onwurah.html/feed60James Frayne: The Government needs fresh faces – here are seven MPs who should be promotedhttps://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/09/james-frayne-the-government-needs-fresh-faces-here-are-seven-mps-who-should-be-promoted.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/09/james-frayne-the-government-needs-fresh-faces-here-are-seven-mps-who-should-be-promoted.html#commentsTue, 26 Sep 2017 10:13:11 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130555James Frayne is Director of communications agency Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion. The focus of this column is Theresa May’s conservatism for “ordinary working people”.

There’s something deeply unappealing about the Conservative Party right now. Theresa May is clinging on rather than leading, senior politicians are spinelessly and anonymously briefing against each other instead of saying what they think publicly, every announcement seems to be about mitigating disaster rather than taking the country forward, and many of the party’s senior figures come across as either frightened or miserable. It feels like the back end of John Major’s Government.

The announcement of policies and public comment on the most important issues are the best way to appeal to voters. Too many people in campaigns are dismissive of the power of policy, but policy announcements evoke strong reactions in the electorate and bring to life politicians’ stated values and vision. With this in mind, as I argued last week, the Government needs a policy-based campaign that differentiates the Conservative Party from Labour on areas of comparative advantage.

But spokespeople obviously matter, too – unattractive politicians struggle to sell good policies – and it’s becoming increasingly clear the Government and Party needs a massive refresh. In short, Theresa May needs to promote energetic, bright, optimistic talent into the Cabinet and Ministerial ranks – and she needs to get rid of those that look like they’re obsessed with internal politics or, frankly, that look bored and pedestrian. There are plenty of people that fit into the first category of rising stars and plenty that also fit into the second category of the pointless.

Who should be promoted?

First of all, Dominic Raab should be in the Cabinet. Raab passes the Westminster media test: he can be deployed in any interview with Andrew Neil on the most complex subject matters and come out with an enhanced reputation. But he’s also a politician who can speak directly to the public in their own language. And, crucially for this point in time, he has the air of an optimist that wants to change things for the better.

It’s too early for promotion to ministerial rank, but Kemi Badenoch needs to be given a role within the Party where she can be used more widely. Badenoch is a breath of fresh air; she’s completely straight-talking and un-varnished in the best sense of the term. With her strong Conservative principles, she’s probably not one to be used to appeal to metropolitan AB voters in a Brexit culture war, but she will go down well with the provincial English voters that the Conservatives rely on.

While it’s too early for Badenoch, it’s not too early for Rishi Sunak to be made a minister. While naturally more wonkish than most politicians, he combines an unusually deep interest in policy with huge enthusiasm to get things done – which gives him the air of a political optimist. Amid all the moaning and pessimism at the top of the Party, he’d provide a great contrast.

Neil O’Brien is similarly wonkish but hyper-optimistic and should also be used, like Badenoch, in a public role. He practically invented the concept of the Northern Powerhouse and should be given a role to drive this on to appeal to the Labour-voting, Northern working class.

While George Eustice’s tone and manner are different to Sunak’s, they share a relentless desire for change and a belief it can happen. While Sunak oozes sunny optimism, Eustice has the air of someone that simply can’t understand why things aren’t better. Eustice is also extremely hard-working, on top of his brief and is one of the most under-rated media performers in Government. He never makes a mistake. He should be given the opportunity to run his own department.

Lucy Frazer has quietly and competently gone about her role on the Education Select Committee and has had a relatively low profile in the media, but she should now be considered for a ministerial role. As a former barrister, she is a persuasive advocate but, unusually for former barristers, she doesn’t sound like she’s just walked out of the Oxford Union. In short, she connects.

May is in a difficult position: she needs to keep a lot of people happy at a time when she isn’t strong. It’s unrealistic to imagine that she can run the Cabinet, the Government or indeed the Party in exactly the way she wishes. But she might find that she has more room to change personnel than she might think. She should do us all a favour – and herself in the process – and get rid of those politicians that are dragging the Government and the Party down.

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/09/james-frayne-the-government-needs-fresh-faces-here-are-seven-mps-who-should-be-promoted.html/feed124Nick Faith: Four lessons from last June’s election for the Conservativeshttps://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/09/nick-faith-four-lessons-from-last-junes-election-for-the-conservatives.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/09/nick-faith-four-lessons-from-last-junes-election-for-the-conservatives.html#commentsTue, 26 Sep 2017 08:30:43 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130533Nick Faith is Director of WPI Srategy.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s (JRF) fascinating analysis of last June’s general glection has produced some key lessons for the Conservative Party. The charity asked Matthew Goodwin and Oliver Heath to analyse the British Election Study data to examine voter attitudes towards income, poverty and Brexit.

These are the four main take-aways which could influence future elections:

The working class vote is very much up for grabs

Both Labour and the Conservatives increased their share of the working class vote by about eight percentage points. 37 per cent of lower income earners voted for the Tories compared to 42 per cent for Labour. While many voters on low incomes agree with the vote for Brexit and still favour immigration controls, they were still relatively more likely to vote for Labour because of their desire to improve living standards. This suggests that Labour’s anti-austerity agenda and historical identification with people on lower incomes still resonates strongly with a significant proportion of working class voters. However, what the research clearly reveals is that voting on class lines alone is becoming less and less important, and indeed has been eclipsed by educational qualifications and age.

The Conservatives will need a ‘Brexit Plus’ offer to win over swathes of lower income voters, especially in more urban areas

The Conservatives’ approach to Brexit and immigration undoubtedly helped win over a significant number of older, lower income voters. This was especially true for voters living out of major urban centres with fewer educational qualifications. As the report’s author highlights, in a traditional Labour seat such as Rother Valley, held by Labour since 1918, the Conservative vote increased by more than 17 points. The same pattern was repeated in places such as Burnley, Chesterfield. Redcar, Ashfield and Heywood and Middleton, where the Tory vote increased significantly.

However, the Conservatives did not win the vast number of the 140-odd Brexit-supporting seats held by Labour. As the research suggests, Labour managed to rebuff the Tory drive due to individual fears over the state of their personal finances and future economic outlook. Quite simply, the Conservatives cannot expect to win over these more deprived constituencies at the next election unless they have a ‘Brexit Plus’ offering which works on the doorstep.

The Conservatives must present a package of ‘counter intuitive’ policies which address living standards

Regardless of how Jeremy Corbyn is viewed, the Labour brand is still (just about) strong enough among many working class communities. The research primarily puts this down to lower income earners perceiving Labour to be able to improve not only their own personal financial situation, but also the future economic potential of the wider communities they live in. People who thought their household’s financial situation had worsened the year leading up to the election were almost twice as likely to vote Labour than Tory (48 per cent – 27 per cent). Just as importantly, the analysis reveals that people also voted in line with the deprivation levels of their wider community. The probability of a low earner living in a poor area of the country voting Conservative was 23 per cent.

Theresa May and her team were right to focus on presenting the Tories as standing up for ‘ordinary working families’ or those who were ‘just about managing’. The problem was the speed of the election and muddled campaign strategy did not allow the party to test and roll out big, new and practical policy ideas that would address the living standard question. They also failed to bring enough wider supporters – charities, think tanks, campaign groups, community leaders – with them on key policies. Without other voices which may have more clout with more deprived communities, the report suggests that the Conservatives will struggle to increase their share of the vote enough to make significant electoral gains.

The Party must continue to adapt to the changing nature of modern Britain

Turnout in 2017 was the highest since 1997 at 69 per cent. The biggest increases were in seats with a large proportion of younger people, graduates, ethnic minority communities and people who voted remain in the EU referendum. This was not just a London phenomenon. Indeed as the JRF report highlights, of the 50 seats that recorded the sharpest increase in turnout only 14 were in the capital. Younger voters must not simply be defined as students and recent graduates. Pretty much every age bracket under 47 voted for Labour. The population may be ageing, but the Conservatives are in danger of haemorrhaging age groups who historically tended to vote for them in large numbers.

The Conservatives also lost support among ethnic minority communities. The party’s vote declined by 0.5 points in the 20 most ethnically diverse seats while Labour’s vote increased by 10 points. Just 25 per cent of BAME communities voted Tory, compared to 61 per cent who voted Labour. Given that Britain is expected to be 30 per cent non-white by 2050, the demographic shifts pose serious electoral challenges to the party.

What should we conclude?

To state the obvious, elections are notoriously difficult to predict. However, this new research shines a light on the opportunities and major challenges facing the Conservative Party. The party is at its very best when it is able to appeal to a broader church as possible. There is clear evidence that lower income voters are not wedded to any particular party. At the same time, people under 50 – especially those who are well educated, from minority communities and live in cities – need to feel that the Tories are on their side.

Presenting a set of policies which address peoples’ concerns, not just about Brexit, but their future – quality education and retraining opportunities, job security, earnings potential, housing affordability and availability – could lead to the Conservatives securing a fourth term in government.

‘Downing Street has been preparing the ground in case Boris Johnson suddenly resigns. Tory MPs have been receiving calls from the whips’ office, which has been assessing support for the foreign secretary while canvassing views on the prime minister’s speech in Florence. No 10 has been told that Mr Johnson has minimal support among MPs. Tories who backed Remain are generally unimpressed by his interventions but Leave supporters are among the angriest. Many of them have never seen Mr Johnson as a soulmate and worry that he is destabilising the government to the point that he could smooth Jeremy Corbyn’s path to power, putting Brexit in jeopardy.’ – The Times

German election result could delay Brexit talks

‘Political deadlock in Germany is likely to delay the start of Brexit trade talks for several months, senior ministers fear. Downing Street had hoped for Theresa May’s concessions last week to “unlock” negotiations in Brussels and allow talks on a transition deal and a future relationship to begin after a meeting of European leaders next month. However, after Sunday’s divisive German election result, Whitehall now believes that it will be difficult for the EU to quickly agree a joint position. The unexpectedly poor showing for Angela Merkel and her Bavarian allies means she will be mired in talks for months and only able to focus on international issues of the highest priority — which the Brexit talks are not.’ – The Times

Wallace: Both Leavers and Remainers are still struggling to adapt to the outcome of the referendum

‘For a vocal minority of Remain supporters, who got their way on this and other issues for many years, the reality of defeat has proved simply impossible to accept. Rather than adapt to the result, or scrutinise their errors, they’ve jetted off into a twilight zone of EU-themed fancy dress, conspiracy theories, and increasingly unpleasant dismissal of Leave voters as ignorant racists who could help everyone out by simply dying off…The history of Euroscepticism – 40 years of defeat, except for staving off British membership of the Euro – means that Leavers learned long ago to be somewhat suspicious of politicians. That breeds a fatalistic, even paranoid, assumption that Westminster is always about to sell out to Brussels: even having won the war, perhaps we might still lose the peace. Over a year on, Remainers and Leavers are both in some disarray, still struggling to adjust to the referendum result.’ – Mark Wallace, the i paper

Mercer accuses the MoD of ‘cooking the books’ to meet the NATO two per cent target

‘Britain was accused last night of “cooking the books” on defence spending to meet a Nato target even as the cash-strapped armed forces was being over-stretched. Johnny Mercer, a Tory member of the defence select committee, said it was only within the MoD that people believed that a 2 per cent minimum of GDP was being spent on defence. Woody Johnson, the new US ambassador to London, had raised questions about the amount of money committed to UK military power. “You are spending the minimum, and you have to decide whether it is enough,” Mr Johnson told The Daily Telegraph. “We spend twice that much and we could still spend more.” Mr Mercer, a former army officer, said he did not believe that Britain was even meeting the 2 per cent minimum. “We have cooked the books,” he said. “The only people we are kidding are ourselves. I do not think people within the military think [we are meeting it].”’ – The Times

Hammond refuses to discuss who should lead the Conservatives into the next election

‘Mr Hammond was in Scotland today to meet with business leaders and the oil and gas sector, before holding talks with Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson. During a meeting with journalists, he dodged a series of questions about Mrs May’s leadership and when asked who the ‘optimum person’ to lead the Conservatives into the next election would be – he refused to endorse the Prime Minister. Speaking to journalists in Dundee, Mr Hammond was pressed four times on whether Mrs May was the best person to lead the party at the next election. “I’m not going to get into a conversation about the future Conservative Party leadership,” he said. “I’m completely behind her, she’s making an excellent job of managing the Brexit negotiations. All of us need to focus on delivering a Brexit that works for Britain.’ – Daily Mail

The Chancellor cautions the SNP over a potential income tax rise – Daily Telegraph

Greenest summer ever

‘Britain had its greenest summer yet this year. More than half of its electricity was produced by low-carbon sources for the first time, according to National Grid. Almost 52 per cent of electricity was generated by either nuclear or renewable forms of power between June 21 and September 22, the astronomical summer. That was up from almost 48 per cent in the same period last year and made for four years of consecutive increases since summer 2013, when low-carbon generation stood at only 35 per cent of the mix. The shift towards a greener power mix primarily reflects the construction of more renewable plants, backed by subsidies funded by consumers’ energy bills. Renewables, comprising wind and solar farms, biomass and hydro-electric plants, accounted for 24 per cent of the mix this summer, up from 9 per cent in summer 2013.’ – The Times

McDonnell threatens mass nationalisations at below market value

‘John McDonnell vowed to take Britain into a ‘new era’ of hard-Left government today as he set out plans to nationalise utilities at below the market rate. The shadow chancellor fleshed out his goal of bringing rail, energy and water back into public ownership, insisting that parliament – not the market – would decide how much shareholders would be paid. Mr McDonnell also signalled that Labour could borrow tens of billions to end PFI contracts to provide public services, reiterated Labour’s determination to enforce caps on high pay, and vowed to strengthen unions.’ – Daily Mail

Sylvester: A generational divide threatens Corbyn’s revolution

‘There’s a generational divide between the students who chanted Mr Corbyn’s name at Glastonbury and the sixty-something class warriors who have spent decades trying to push the Labour Party to the left. Underlying that are cultural differences between those who learnt their politics from the Occupy protest movement, which rejects hierarchy, and those who came out of the trade unions and Labour committees system, who see organisation as the route to power. In policy terms, disagreements are emerging between a younger generation that supported Remain in the referendum and an older one that sees the EU as part of a capitalist neo-liberal plot. Although both groups are on the left of politics they are on opposite sides of the “open-closed” divide identified by Tony Blair and others as the defining split in politics. “Well-meaning middle-class people are being manipulated by the Trots,” says one former special adviser.’ – Rachel Sylvester, The Times

Nurses from the Philippines fail language test

‘A plan to bring 200 nurses from the Philippines to work in a hospital in Kent has stalled after nearly 90 per cent of the first cohort failed a language test. The nurses were offered jobs at Medway Maritime Hospital in Gillingham after a recruitment drive in Manila. Of the first 59 that were due to start work this autumn, 52 failed the test. Managers visited the Philippines in April after a report found that the hospital was relying too much on costly agency staff. In August, the hospital had vacancies for 394 nurses. Applicants from non-European Union countries have to take an English language test set by the Nursing and Midwifery Council.’ – The Times

GPs’ receptionists encouraged to weed out patients who don’t need a doctor – The Times

Kurdistan defies the threats and holds its independence referendum – The Spectator

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/frontpage/2017/09/newslinks-for-tuesday-26th-september-2017.html/feed3What is your view of May’s Florence speech on Brexit? Of Johnson’s Telegraph article? Of an implementation period? Our monthly survey is out.https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/09/brexit-what-is-your-view-of-mays-florence-speech-of-johnsons-telegraph-article-of-an-implementation-period-our-monthly-survey-is-out.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/09/brexit-what-is-your-view-of-mays-florence-speech-of-johnsons-telegraph-article-of-an-implementation-period-our-monthly-survey-is-out.html#commentsTue, 26 Sep 2017 06:00:32 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130549And we have our usual monthly questions, too – the Prime Minister’s future, Next Party leader, Cabinet League Table, and next election result expectation.

Party members who have received our survey previously should check their inboxes this morning (and their spam if necessary).

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/09/brexit-what-is-your-view-of-mays-florence-speech-of-johnsons-telegraph-article-of-an-implementation-period-our-monthly-survey-is-out.html/feed78Corbyn is mounting a coup d’état against parliamentary democracyhttps://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/09/corbyn-is-mounting-a-coup-detat-against-parliamentary-democracy.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/09/corbyn-is-mounting-a-coup-detat-against-parliamentary-democracy.html#commentsTue, 26 Sep 2017 05:50:51 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130516The Labour Party is undergoing a revolution. If one glances at the party’s Rule Book and finds it unreadable, or casts an eye over the sweeping procedural changes which are under way and reckons life is too short to take them in, what is happening can seem incomprehensible.

But the new rules are of crucial importance, for if this revolution succeeds, Labour MPs will be reduced to the status of mere delegates, the grip of the Bennite Left will be confirmed, and Parliament will suffer a loss of sovereignty compared to which the incursions of the European Union will come to seem benign.

Labour MPs have already suffered a humiliating loss of power, which sprang from a quite minor event. In 2012, the Labour MP for Falkirk, Eric Joyce, resigned from the party after being involved in a brawl in a Commons bar, and said he would leave Parliament at the next general election.

The choice of the Labour candidate to replace Joyce led to allegations of undue influence by the Unite trade union, which in turn prompted Ed Miliband to reduce the power of the trade unions in electing the Labour leader.

In place of an electoral college composed of one third trade unions, one third MPs and MEPs, and one third individual members, a system of one man one vote was introduced, and it became possible to join the party for only three pounds.

The disastrous impact of these rule changes on moderate Labour MPs was not foreseen. After all, any leadership candidate had to be nominated by 15 per cent of MPs, a safeguard which it was thought would exclude any member of the Bennite Left from standing.

But at the last minute, Jeremy Corbyn, a true friend and disciple of Tony Benn, gained the required number of nominations, thanks to MPs such as Margaret Beckett, a former Foreign Secretary, who later agreed that she and others who did this were “morons”.

For Corbyn soon emerged as the front runner, with hundreds of thousands of activists joining the party in order to vote for him. The revised rules were a golden opportunity for left-wingers who felt ignored and insulted during the long Blairite hegemony, indeed ever since Michael Foot had stepped down after losing the general election of 1983, to take revenge and seize control.

The party’s membership tripled, from 200,000 to 600,000, and Corbyn won on the first ballot, in which he took almost 60 per cent of the vote. The story of how the Labour Left triumphed after three decades of defeat and ridicule is told with admirable lucidity by George Eaton in the current issue of the New Statesman.

Labour MPs found themselves saddled with a leader most of them regarded as utterly unfit to become Prime Minister, or indeed to lead them into the next general election. So in 2016 they rebelled against him, and passed a motion of no confidence in him by 172 to 40 votes, with 65 shadow ministers handing in their resignations.

In parliamentary terms, that was a shattering defeat, which no leader could survive. But Labour no longer runs its affairs by parliamentary rules. It held another leadership election under its own rules, and Corbyn stormed to victory with almost 62 per cent of the vote, even better than first time round.

The general assumption, shared by Theresa May, was that Corbyn would nevertheless prove a disastrous handicap to his party at the general election. He instead increased Labour’s share of the vote by almost ten percentage points, and gained another 30 MPs.

That was not enough to put him into Downing Street, but compared to the dismal showing which had been predicted for him, it was a triumph. No wonder Labour politicians in Brighton have been claiming victory. Any party which so far exceeded expectations would be tempted to say the same.

But Corbyn is 68 years old. He cannot be immortal. Who will succeed him?

For his Bennite supporters, this is a crucial question. They realised the rule that any leadership candidate must be nominated by 15 per cent of MPs would have to go. Some wanted it cut to five per cent, while others were prepared to settle for ten per cent.

A yet more daring possibility suggested itself. Why give the MPs any say at all over this question? For as Chris Williamson, one of the few MPs loyal to Corbyn, recently told the Guardian:

“There shouldn’t be a leadership threshold at all. That needs to change. Who are the PLP [parliamentary Labour party]? They are a tiny percentage of the party.”

It would be more democratic for the MPs to be written out of the decision altogether. Corbyn and his close ally John McDonnell like nothing better than to proclaim how democratic they are. As Corbyn told Andrew Marr on Sunday:

“We’re having a Democracy Commission in the party. We’re expanding the size of the National Executive and we’re looking at how we can open the party up much more and make conference the final decider of policy. So there have to be some structural issues decided in the party. But that’s fine and I have to say it went through the National Executive with no opposition.”

No opposition. Here is a Soviet level of democracy. Everything is so reasonable, and so virtuous, that no one can object. The National Executive is to acquire three new members to represent the membership, and one new member to represent the trade unions, which means the representatives of MPs and other elected figures will be reduced from a third to a quarter of its membership. But the whole body will be democratic, and loyal to the Bennite organisation whose front man is Corbyn.

And conference will be the final decider of policy. How odd, one may think, that conference did not decide Labour’s policy on Brexit, even though many who went to Brighton have passionate views on that subject. But here is Theo Bertram, who worked in Downing Street for both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, explaining why conference is “an awful place to make policy”:

“The process is the worst type of sport, where the winners are those who best know the rules.

“Conference delegates are in theory the ones who write & choose the motions that are debated on conference floor. But that is only in theory.

“The process begins in August, when local parties are quietly pressured by one side or another to submit ‘contemporary motions’.

“If the motion is over 250 words or doesn’t contain something ‘new’ since August, then it is inadmissible. So motions get obtuse. And weird…

“This is just the start of the process. It becomes so gloriously complex that only Labour’s big institutions can fully navigate it.

Motions are considered by the Conference Arrangements Committee & a list of successful motions is distributed to delegates.

“Delegates then vote in the ‘priority ballot’ to choose the most important topics for debate.

“This happens over the first weekend at conference when nothing else is happening & many ordinary delegates have not arrived.

“Successful motions are grouped together & delegates from the constituencies that submitted the motions are invited to a meeting Sunday night.

“This meeting is called the ‘compositing meeting’ and it is the pinnacle of conference arcanery & chicanery.

“Still with me? No? Well, you’re not alone: most ordinary members are usually lost by now too. You need institutional nous to get this far.”

The Conference Arrangements Committee is for the first time in Labour’s history in the hands of the Left. They can determine what gets debated and what doesn’t, and next year, they intend to use this power to the full. As Tom McTague explained two days ago in a piece for Politico:

“Proposed constitutional amendments which have been put forward for consideration…include giving members and trade unions, rather than MPs alone, the power to nominate leadership candidates. Under this proposal a candidate could stand in a leadership contest with 15 per cent of the votes of affiliated national trade unions or with backing of 15 per cent of constituency Labour parties.

“Other proposals suggest raising the proportion of MPs required to get rid of a leader from 20 per cent to 40 per cent; the introduction of two deputy leaders, of which at least one would be a woman; forcing the party’s general secretary to stand for election for a three year term no more than one year and eight months after the rule is introduced — i.e. before the next election. The current party chief Iain McNicol would be entitled to stand in a ballot of all party members but would almost certainly lose.”

So no MPs at all will be needed to nominate whoever succeeds Corbyn. Here is the apotheosis of democracy, as run by Jon Lansman, the founder of Momentum, and by other Bennite apparatchiks with an inexhaustible appetite for procedural manoeuvrings during which their opponents can be worn down by the application of, among a number of ruthless qualities, sheer boredom.

If these apparatchiks get their way, MPs will also be made far more subject to their local parties. They will no longer be able to offer their independent judgment. They will be puppets.

Throughout Labour history there has been a tension between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary methods. Ralph Miliband – father of David and Ed, protégé of Harold Laski, intellectual soulmate of Tony Benn – suggested in Parliamentary Socialism (1961) that Labour’s devotion to Parliament had rendered it ineffective.

But during the great reforming government of 1945, the greatest leader in Labour history, Clement Attlee, would have no truck with extra-parliamentary instructions. As he told Laski, Labour chairman, in 1946:

“You have no right whatever to speak on behalf of the Government. Foreign affairs are in the capable hands of Ernest Bevin. His task is quite sufficiently difficult without the irresponsible statements of the kind you are making… I can assure you there is widespread resentment in the Party at your activities and a period of silence on your part would be welcome.”

Corbyn would never dream of issuing such a rebuke. For him, a period of silence on the part of his MPs would be welcome. For three decades, he was a backbencher of independent outlook, but as leader, he has become the front man for a Bennite system of rules which amounts to a coup d’état against parliamentary democracy.

One indefatigable Labour campaigner who has the courage to say what is going wrong in Corbyn’s so-called “Democracy Review” is Richard Angell of the centrist group Progress:

“We are now in a permanent campaign to undermine the role of MPs, marginalise their voice and get them to acquiesce. Never before has a review of this kind been conducted from behind closed doors in the leader’s office. It is a bizarre, factional and unparalleled power grab.”

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/09/corbyn-is-mounting-a-coup-detat-against-parliamentary-democracy.html/feed95Iain Duncan Smith: Brexit. Why the Government must prepare for no deal now.https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/09/iain-duncan-smith-why-the-government-must-prepare-for-no-brexit-deal-now.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/09/iain-duncan-smith-why-the-government-must-prepare-for-no-brexit-deal-now.html#commentsTue, 26 Sep 2017 05:30:52 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130536Iain Duncan Smith is a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, founded the Centre for Social Justice, and is MP for Chingford and Woodford Green.

As the dust settles on the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence and the media moves on, there remains a need to start to fill in the grey areas of the Government’s Brexit policy – particularly the options on the setting and delivery of the agenda.

Let’s start with the statement that there will be an implementation period of up to two years. This is apparently needed because British business wants to have time to get its systems right, and the civil service has to ensure that all the controls and checks are in place from border control to beef imports. If this is all about the practicalities of implementation, then I understand extra time may be required, (although the need for our officials to do what they are doing must be checked), but this period must be defined and kept tight.

None the less, there is a lack of clarity about what our relationship with the EU would be during this period. Now this is the most critical point.

Under the rules of Article 50, the UK leaves the EU at the very end of March 2019 with – or, just as importantly, without – settled arrangements concerning the UK’s or the EU’s future relationship. The only way to change this timetable is for all 27 EU nations (plus the UK) and the EU Parliament to agree. This means unless there is some new agreement, the UK will outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and also outside the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Thus any relationship during this period would be between two legally sovereign powers – the UK and the EU. However, Michel Barnier has suggested otherwise, reiterating the demand that the UK subject itself to the suzerainty of the ECJ. I note that following the Florence speech David Davis said that we will not be beholden to the rulings of the ECJ during the implementation phase. If that is so, then it is important that all ministers repeat this, otherwise they risk creating greater confusion.

It is critical domestically that we stick to the Article 50 timetable, or many people will feel they have been misled. After all, Brexit must mean democratic control of policy residing within the UK legal democratic framework, and not within a supranational arrangement which would amount to sovereignty-lite, or sovereignty without meaning.

What worries a number of people in this context is that, at present, the EU Withdrawal Bill still has no commencement date, at which point the new laws and regulations set by Parliament will come into force. Unless it is written into the face of the legislation that this date will not be later than the last day of March 2019, many will wonder if the Government really does intend that the UK leaves the EU at the end of the Article 50 process. Worse, the EU will have noticed this element of the Bill, and may feel emboldened to resist all further progress because they will suspect that the Government is uncertain. We need to put this right at once, so that we have a baseline to focus on.

There was some further scratching of heads after the speech – for, as I understand it, Government briefing said that the UK will now focus during the talks on establishing implementation period arrangements before March 2019. Worryingly, this briefing apparently went on to suggest that this period itself would be used to negotiate a new free trade arrangement (FTA)energ. This I find deeply troubling. Surely the only way to get a proper agreement is to insist that the EU thrashes out our future trade arrangements with us before the end of March 2019. I fully recognise that there may continue to be elements of detail to be completed, but unless there is at least a clearly-settled ‘Heads of Agreement’ between the UK and the EU agreeing the crucial framework of a deal, the two year implementation period will be used by the EU to delay departure.

The Article 50 deadline is a critical component in the discussions. Now that the Prime Minister has made her speech indicating that the UK meet our financial obligations, the EU has to respond. Instead of making mealy-mouthed utterances and threatening statements, they need to start the negotiations on trade. To make this happen, we need to put some pressure on them. To do that, two critical factors need to be engaged.

The first is that we publicly, and through strong cabinet leadership, make it clear that we are going to throw resources at the plans for leaving the EU without an agreement. We need to up the pace dramatically on the process, giving regular public updates on progress.

Alongside this move, we need to say to the EU that we expect it to respond to the Florence speech with a guarantee that we will now discuss a trade agreement. We should say that the EU has to make that decision by December – or we will assume they do not intend to do so, and that we must make the necessary arrangements to leave without a deal. This is important, because we will need all the remaining time to reach such an agreement but, if no FTA is forthcoming, then we must be ready to leave under WTO terms. If the EU does not then accept what would be a reasonable offer from the Government, it will be clear to everyone that it has no real interest in genuine post Brexit co-operation. If that is the case, it is best to establish it early.

All negotiations need to establish the real intent of the other party early on. Setting limits is an important device in establishing intent. However, having indicated in this case that we could be flexible about money, we should not now accept any answer from the EU other than that we will now start discussions on trade. We are not supplicants begging for favours from the EU. As the Prime Minister has said, we are interested in an arrangement that suits us both. The arrogant behaviour of the EU so far, bordering on the deliberately offensive, is a bluff that we need to call. After all, the UK is the fourth largest economy in the world, with the third most potent armed forces and a global reach in terms of trade and cooperation that is second to none. If they want to behave in this manner towards an ally and friend who has been a member of the EU for 40 years, and is the second largest economy in the EU, then it were best that we established this now.

Instead of listening to the bleating of the CBI, we should recognise that further delay is not in our favour. For instead of business holding back investment for 18 months, the risk is that, unless the implementation period starts with a clear agreement on our future trading relationship already in place, firms are unlikely to wait for up to 40 months. Business needs a clear sense of direction, and as early as possible. Better to have a clean break early than a prolonged process with a complicated and disagreeable ending. Furthermore, the Commission hopes that if it can string the UK along for long enough, it will have longer to try and make it advantageous to set up British-based businesses within the the EU.

In conclusion, any agreement must not bind future Governments. While, clearly, any UK Government will wish to cooperate with the EU as an ally, areas of foreign policy, such as defence, border control, judicial authority, agriculture, fisheries, environment, energy, trade policy must be fully returned to the UK. A series of binding side deals would be unacceptable.

We are, I believe, poised at a critical moment. As we wait for a somewhat weakened Angela Merkel to re-enter the negotiations, we must either decide we want decisiveness and clarity and set the agenda, or bend the knee and hope for the best. Ninety per cent of the world’s growth is going to be outside the stultifying protectionism of the EU by the time the next few years pass. If we believe as I do that the UK is ready for a British renaissance, then we need to be bold, determined and clear.

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/09/iain-duncan-smith-why-the-government-must-prepare-for-no-brexit-deal-now.html/feed174Nicholas Mazzei: Khan and TfL are right to block Uber. We Conservatives are on the wrong side of the argument.https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/09/nicholas-mazzei-khan-and-tfl-are-right-to-block-uber-we-conservatives-are-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-argument.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/09/nicholas-mazzei-khan-and-tfl-are-right-to-block-uber-we-conservatives-are-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-argument.html#commentsTue, 26 Sep 2017 05:20:28 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130502Nicholas Mazzei is a former Army Officer who now works for BT.

We Conservatives are on the wrong side of the Uber debate. Social media exploded last week with complaints about how TfL have bent to the will of the black taxi lobby by not renewing Uber’s license to operate in London. TfL’s reason is that Uber “demonstrate(s) a lack of corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implications”. This case is well known, and I won’t repeat it here. Suffice to say that the Conservatives should be supporting this decision, and holding Uber and other tech companies to account on how their platforms are used and managed.

The arguments in support of Uber by Tories usually focus on the free market – that Uber is innovating in a sector that has been dominated by legacy propositions, and that the unions are simply wanting to hold back progress. They also argue that the Mayor of London is supporting the latter in their fight and that, by not renewing Uber’s license, 40,000 employees will be put at risk. Finally, they say that TfL should investigate the black taxi firms and private hire companies to the same agree that Uber has been investigated.

I agree with most of those arguments. The innovation by Uber has revolutionised a backwards industry. It cut costs and made transport a high-tech sector. Customer service is generally good, giving you option of tracking your taxi when it’s on its way to you and over the journey, with a guarantee of a cost taken straight from your card rather than having to worry about carrying cash and getting all that useless coin change. The union lobby has been heavy-handed: instead of expending so much effort to ban Uber, they should have focused on innovating and improving service.

But these arguments don’t resolve the issues. Uber, along with other tech ‘platform’ based companies claim that they don’t have any employees. They’ve been taken to court over their policies on lack of sick pay, very poor pay rates and the way that they loan vehicles over ten years which drivers have to pay back out of their pay. They’ve been condemned and banned in other cities around the world, where they’ve been caught out using software to block regulators and inspectors from booking taxis, so an assessment of the standard of their service can be made.

Most worrying, they’ve failed to report criminal activity by drivers using their platform. Many customers have complained of stalking and sexual assault by drivers, as well as drivers abandoning them on the side of the road. Uber’s chief executive has resigned due to failures in corporate governance and miss-treatment of women in the company. Its attitude to women in the business is not just archaic – it’s practically stone age. Yet people remain silent over these issues, because the taxi company is “innovative and cheap”.

The anger by Conservatives over the potential loss of 40,000 jobs is also perplexing. The same people who raise an outcry over this are silent as Uber develop technology to eliminate all drivers, as they plan to bring in driverless vehicle technology. It’s an argument, I am told, about “protecting jobs today” – which is essentially the same argument that the black taxi lobby use, which says that Uber is taking their jobs. Uber’s jobs are also much lower-skilled than existing taxi roles. Arguing for jobs today is good and all but, by supporting Uber’s existence, Conservatives are bringing forward the loss of jobs tomorrow. This is not in itself an argument against automation; I am a strong advocate for it, but there needs to be a recognition by those arguing for Uber that their case isn’t really about protecting jobs.

Uber will now be forced to review its practices in London if it wants to continue operating here. 40,000 people will not lose their job at the end of September; Uber will appeal, and will be able to continue to operate while the process continues, which could last for months, if not years. Either Uber changes its work practices, protects its employees more (recognising them as such would be a start) and stops using technology to block inspectors – or it loses the right to operate in London. There are plenty of other services coming to replace Uber, which already offer better pay and rights to drivers. Taxify is one, and there will now be an opportunity for competition to step in. There is also a chance for black taxi firms to review their business model and change. The sector will transform and innovate as a result of this decision; competition will be boosted and consumers will benefit as a result.

It is, simply put, right that we stand up to the tech giants and their poor business practices. A cheap, simple service is not a good enough defence when delivered by a company with poor morals and corporate standards. Conservatives argue that we are the real workers’ party. Therefore it is right that we stand up to companies who treat their workers poorly.

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/09/nicholas-mazzei-khan-and-tfl-are-right-to-block-uber-we-conservatives-are-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-argument.html/feed41Tony Devenish: It’s housing that matters, stupidhttps://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2017/09/tony-devenish-its-housing-that-matter-stupid.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2017/09/tony-devenish-its-housing-that-matter-stupid.html#commentsTue, 26 Sep 2017 05:10:46 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130460Tony Devenish is London Assembly Member for Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, and the City of Westminster.

We Conservatives still ”bang on” about ”Corbyn and the IRA”. Like the media, we want to talk and talk and talk about Brexit (or Donald Trump: cheap 24 hour rolling news I’m afraid). So I have stolen/amended Bill Clinton’s quote ”It’s the Economy, Stupid” for my headline.

Since the general election, the temperature is simmering at boiling point for ”young people” – that category now includes everyone in London under 40 years of age. Rent levels and house prices are pushing Londoners further and further out of the capital and the South East of England or into smaller and smaller properties.

Most of us in public life (including the media) are on one side of a fence as high as the old Iron Curtain. We are homeowners (or at least have an eye-watering mortgage, but at historically low interest rates). The vast majority of those under 40 in London are living in a parallel and less pleasant universe.

”Generation Rent” are being smugly told by a coalition of PRS (private rental sector) finance types, RSL’s (residential social landlords), the housing associations, and millionaire developers (all home owners themselves) that the future’s bright – the future’s a lifetime of renting. What about shared equity ?

Ironically, even leading Tory borough councillors are standing down in May 2018 partly because, like their contemporaries, they simply cannot afford to live in London.

In our capital city, we Conservatives face formidable opponents. NHS professionals, many of whom see us as the enemy while enjoying six figure packages; Michael Gove’s ”education blob” …; – we have failed to win widespread support here. Since 2010, a third huge state monolith has quietly grown even more powerful by mergers and because of Treasury generosity: the housing lobby. Again, rarely do I meet anyone amongst the housing associations who does not see our Party, and especially ”the Right to Buy”, in the way that Dracula views a wooden stake.

Is Government listening? Today, young people thankfully don’t riot like the Poll tax generation of 1990, or the French. They mentally switch off – or vote Corbyn. Many under-40s have told me since the election that they were mortified that Labour did so well: they failed to vote Conservative to ”send us a clear message”.

But the lack of a sense of urgency in Whitehall is appalling.

”Oh well” says the the DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) – “the White Paper on housing this Spring offered a host of ideas” – and yes, some are indeed good.

I welcome the Daily Telegraph‘s Campaign on Stamp Duty and pray that the sensible Philip Hammond will act soon. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s establishment of Alok Sharma’s post-Grenfell Tower review. But enough ”buck passing”. Those of us who are elected councillors need not grow old waiting for government.

Most (not all London) Borough’s own or have influence over huge tracts of public land. A third of the 33 London boroughs have got on and started to redevelop all or part of their town halls and other land and buildings. Amongst other changes, we are seeing a University Business School and new housing, shops, and offices. But shockingly, despite shouting ”cuts” for seven years, the majority, including many Conservative-run boroughs, have done very little.

Let me be blunt: If you are a London Conservative councillor and you let officers mirror the DCLG ”speed” of response, come May 2018, unless you are an elected Member adjacent to Kent, it may no longer be your problem. We Conservatives face in London borough elections a potentially worse result than at anytime since the mid-1990s, when John Major had to fight John Redwood to remain famously ”in office, but not in power” for a further two years of managerial drift.

On this site recently Greg Hands outlined the threat from Momentum hard Left taking over more boroughs and building even fewer homes.

Do not expect Labour Sadiq Khan to help young Londoners. As a Blairite, he is happily fiddling at the edges. Central Government, not the Mayor, will be blamed if Khan continues to be allowed to land bank more land than any other landowner in our capital.

Transport for London alone controls land the size of 16 Hyde Parks – equivalent to the size of the London Borough of Camden. Khan will happily take at least four years’ to spend £3.15 billion of Government money. He may – I say may – start (not finish in that time) 90,000 new homes…but then again he may not.

At Conservative borough level let’s strive, as I wrote in July , to make a real difference on housing on our land as we seek re-election in May 2018.

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2017/09/tony-devenish-its-housing-that-matter-stupid.html/feed61WATCH: Davis opens the new round of Brexit talks – “There are no excuses for standing in the way of progress”https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2017/09/watch-davis-opens-the-new-round-of-brexit-talks-there-are-no-excuses-for-standing-in-the-way-of-progress.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2017/09/watch-davis-opens-the-new-round-of-brexit-talks-there-are-no-excuses-for-standing-in-the-way-of-progress.html#commentsMon, 25 Sep 2017 17:19:41 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130538

#Brexit Secretary David Davis MP says the UK will honour financial commitments made during EU membership but in context of new relationship pic.twitter.com/kv5TdJ5S5u

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2017/09/watch-davis-opens-the-new-round-of-brexit-talks-there-are-no-excuses-for-standing-in-the-way-of-progress.html/feed59Labour deliberately muddies the water about how much its policies would costhttps://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/09/labour-deliberately-muddies-the-water-about-how-much-its-policies-would-cost.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/09/labour-deliberately-muddies-the-water-about-how-much-its-policies-would-cost.html#commentsMon, 25 Sep 2017 14:38:28 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130531John McDonnell’s Labour conference speech followed a familiar pattern today. He pledged “we’ll bring existing PFI contracts back in-house”, an eye-catching announcement certain to garner headlines.

PR hit assured, his Party began to retreat from the pledge within 15 minutes of the Shadow Chancellor uttering the words.

How much will it cost? Nobody knows. How many contracts would be bought out? Nobody knows. What are the practicalities of such a huge commitment if you don’t know the basic numbers involved? Well, hang on a moment, what we’re talking about is a “review” of doing so…but yes of course we’ll buy them all back…well maybe not all, perhaps just “the bulk”…anyway, who said we’d bring them back in-house in the first place…

It’s predictable stuff, which Labour is too often allowed to get away with. Punt out the headlines about shiny promises, avoid the tricky questions about cost, then fudge the details to a degree that means the Opposition can simply refuse to be held to account on its own pledges. They have done it on PFI, on tuition fees, on nationalising rail, energy and the Royal Mail, and they evidently feel that the tactic works for them.

That’s worrying in itself – such promises raise concerns about potential multi-multi-billion burdens for the taxpayer, and inevitably spook people who might invest in Britain about what might happen to their investments. But it’s also an act of dishonesty which seeks to mislead voters.

Nor is such a practice confined to individual, big-ticket pledges. Its most pernicious use is in Labour’s endless use of the word “costed” to describe their spending plans as a whole. That’s used as a catch-all defence to suggest fiscal responsibility – sometimes even being stretched further to imply cost-neutrality. But what does it really mean?

In the case of their proposed nationalisations, it means nothing at all. They aren’t willing to specify a price, or even to accept that the state would have to pay market value when buying such assets – McDonnell only asserts that “the value of any industry that is brought into public ownership is determined by parliament”. In the case of PFI, they can’t even say how many contracts will be bought out, never mind how much it will cost. In the case of rail, they talk about waiting for franchises to expire, while avoiding the question of how they would buy the rolling stock that actually runs on the railways.

Even on the measures where the Opposition does give a figure, “costed” is often a euphemism at best. They routinely under-estimate the cost of implementing policies, wrongly assuming the state is hyper-efficient, while habitually over-estimating the new revenue that will be raised by tax rises, wrongly assuming that raising tax rates does not stunt growth or change behaviour.

The fact is that the full costs of McDonnell’s policies won’t be known until we’re all paying for them – and by then it will be too late.

]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2017/09/watch-mcdonnell-pledges-to-buy-out-pfi-contracts.html/feed29WATCH: McDonnell – “We can use the state to help shape Britain’s future in this new world”https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2017/09/watch-mcdonnells-we-can-use-the-state-to-help-shape-britains-future-in-this-new-world.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2017/09/watch-mcdonnells-we-can-use-the-state-to-help-shape-britains-future-in-this-new-world.html#commentsMon, 25 Sep 2017 13:00:34 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130526
]]>https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2017/09/watch-mcdonnells-we-can-use-the-state-to-help-shape-britains-future-in-this-new-world.html/feed6What they really think about Corbyn 1) Keir Starmerhttps://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/09/what-they-really-think-about-corbyn-1-keir-starmer.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/09/what-they-really-think-about-corbyn-1-keir-starmer.html#commentsMon, 25 Sep 2017 10:56:26 +0000https://www.conservativehome.com/?p=130524In the week of the Labour Party conference, we thought it would be useful to look at what various prominent Labour MPs really think about Jeremy Corbyn in their own words.

This morning Sir Keir Starmer, the Shadow Brexit Secretary, spoke of Corbyn’s Labour Party as a potential government.

‘I have maintained my support for you, notwithstanding my reservations…It is simply untenable now to suggest that we can offer an effective opposition without a change of leader.’

After the Copeland by-election, Starmer said:

“A number of things came up, including the direction of travel of the Labour party, Labour’s ability to communicate and understand what people are saying to them and of course the leadership of the Labour party, and we all know that.”